Re: [boost] Re: [signals] Performance

From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-02 21:33:00

On Dec 2, 2004, at 6:05 PM, Robert Zeh wrote:
> First let me mention that optional<R> is really cool.  I had never
> really looked at it before today.
>
> Let me see if I have the basic ideas down for the changes to
> slot_call_iterator and signal's operator().
[snip]

Yep, you've got it.

> Wouldn't this create a slot_call_iterator that was fragile?  Copies of
> the slot_call_iterator would be share the optional<R> pointer, which
> could lead to really interesting results.  The slot_call_iterator's
> lifetime would have to be within the optional<R> pointer's lifetime or
> the slot_call_iterator would be accessing an invalid pointer.

Yes, you are correct. But slot_call_iterators have always been fragile, 
because they have references to all of the arguments passed to the 
signal as well... so this won't be a change in behavior.

        Doug